When we evaluate the work of master artists, experience teaches us that we should not assume that strange results are accidents. Masters tend to be masters exactly because they control—or master—their relevant material. That’s what makes a master a master.
Disney is a master. Precision and attention to detail.
The Lion King animated version was released by Disney more than 25 years ago. The 1994 animated version of The Lion King is widely regarded as a masterpiece.
Disney recently released a non-animated version of The Lion King. Assuming it had no frame of reference back to the original animated version, some might say the non-animated version is a masterpiece. It is a wonderfully expressed implementation, and it has earned its place for many awards. Jon Favreau, the incomparable Julie Taymor, and the Disney team, did a masterful job with the fantasy-merged realism. Precision and attention to detail.
But, alas, there is a frame of reference to the past. There is a natural baseline. Therefore, some comparison between the old and the new is fair.
[Spoiler Alert! If you have not seen either the animated version of The Lion King or if you have not yet seen the recent non-animated release, I invite you to see one or both before reading further. What I am about to say is not a movie review, but an observation of two expressions of the same story, viewed as a social construct. I’ll give you some space to click out, as a courtesy to you…]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
By way of background, perhaps I need to mention that, for years, I have taught a master-level course, Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity, in the graduate degree Master of Leadership program at Duquesne University.
One of the course segments focuses on an age-old point of wisdom and success: to move forward in life controlling what we can control, letting go of what we cannot control, and knowing the difference. This concept is expressed in Eastern and Western philosophy and spirituality by Confucius, Jesus, Epictetus, Seneca and in the ubiquitous Serenity Prayer.
The one thing we know that we cannot control is the past—a concept weaved into many of my posts. [1] But, even more than Confucius, Jesus, Epictetus, Seneca and the ubiquitous Serenity Prayer, the concept is expressed in the 1994 animated version of The Lion King.
In my course for graduate masters, I sometimes reference this animated 1994 Lion King scene, because it encapsulates the point of letting go of the past with wonderful visual simplicity. “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication,” so said Leonardo da Vinci (and Steve Jobs). [2]
Here is the magical majestic 1994 animated scene from The Lion King:
https://www.linkedin.com/embeds/publishingEmbed.html?articleId=7983391295650451157&li_theme=light
In this 1994 masterpiece—perfect such as it is—Rafiki teaches that, yes, the past can hurt, but he distinguishes that living in the past, wallowing in the past, and dwelling on the past, are different than learning from the past. It is an important teaching for all of us: we take the hit, we learn and we move forward. [*1] Indeed, changing the world is noble, but changing self is wise. [3]
So, why do I mention this scene as a statement of current culture?
This is why: Because this wise Rafiki teaching about letting go of the past was intentionally removed from the recent non-animated version of The Lion King.
Yes, this age-old and time-tested point of wisdom and clarity regarding the uncontrollable past, expressed in the 1994 animated version, was conspicuously (to me) omitted in the 2019 non-animated version.
When I viewed the “new” 2019 version, I was waiting for the equivalent scene, and waiting for it, and waiting for it, but, alas, it was intentionally omitted by Master Disney. There are no presumptive accidents for a master, that’s what makes a master a master. Then, why was Rafiki’s timeless wise teaching intentionally pulled from the movie, in 2019?
Now, my first reaction was that I thought maybe the scene was removed because of time constraints. But, as we can witness for ourselves, it is an extremely short scene, so time cannot be the issue for removal. Moreover, as we can witness for ourselves, it is actually the pivotal plot theme; that is, Rafiki’s timeless wise teaching to Simba is exactly the reason Simba bravely returns to his home for the second half of the story.
Therefore, removal of a short and plot-critical 1994 scene from the 2019 expression is no accident in the hands of precise and attention-to-detail Master Disney, and particularly when the story framework otherwise mirrors the animated masterpiece. Perhaps Master Disney thought its intentional omission would fly under the viewer radar. But the audience is not to be underestimated, or at least not all of it, all of the time, said Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps Disney thought no one would think about it, everyone being too enthralled.
There is viewing an artistic expression, and there is engaging with an artistic expression, it being said “Nulla ars in seipsa perficitur.” (“No art is perfected unto itself.”) A master’s art is not an accident; it is not to be passively received, it is to be actively contemplated.
Facing the past, learning from the past, and moving forward was a time-tested lesson in 1994—expressed by Eastern and Western Sages throughout time—and reflected magically in the original 1994 animated Disney masterpiece, but, alas, not for the culture of 2019, evolved or devolved, as the case may be, such as it is.
The incontrovertible simple fact is that the brave and tough-love teaching was there 25 years ago, as the crux of the plot shift, and as the cause of Simba’s ah-ha moment and point of self-clarity, but now it’s gone.
The new reality of not letting go of the past. [*1, 4]
Whether it was brave or cowardly for Disney to remove the lesson of wisdom expressed by the great sages throughout time, perhaps only the lion knows, and he’s not talking. But the fact of removal itself whispers an insightful story about the evolution or devolution of our current social culture, if we should take a moment actively to engage and to listen carefully.
In 1994, it is self-evident that the Disney team considered Rafiki’s wise teaching to be a lesson that society wanted to or could hear—25 years later, in 2019, not so much.
[*4, *1] It is telling—if not ironic—that Disney should remove the essential lesson of wisdom regarding the past, for a story that is about how to get over the past. [*4]
But we know this:
The removal of Rafiki’s wise and tough-love teaching regarding the past is no accident, but a carefully calculated social decision in the hands of a master [5, 6, 7], which is exactly why Disney is the most dangerous company in the world. [8]
Concerned? Me, too.
[2] The Importance of Aesop to Socrates [#GRZ_100]
[4] The Four Horsemen of the Social Justice Apocalypse [#GRZ_122]
[6] The Academy Awards and Bud Light Parallels, Gone Sideways with the Wind? [#GRZ_147]
[7] Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Tease with Political Incorrectness [#GRZ_74]
[8] Why the Walt Disney Company is the Most Dangerous Company in the World [#GRZ_146]
“Nulla ars in seipsa perficitur.” (“No art is perfected unto itself.”); “Ars domini non est accidens.” (“The art of a master is not an accident.”); “Ars non est passive accipienda, sed magis ars est active contemplanda.” (“Art is not to be passively received, but rather, art is to be actively contemplated.”) ~ grz
© 2019 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lion-king-evolution-devolution-spoiler-alert-maybe-zegarelli-esq-
You might also like:
Salt, Wounds, and the Most Unkindest Cuts of All
Me, Too; Not, You. Or, the Exceptional Principle. – Stand for America®
Surviving Prejudice, Not All Bad
Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself – Or, Hate Best Practices
The Flesh is Weak, Or Why Jesus Got It Wrong
No Tolerance for Hate, or All Tolerance for Hate?
The Insecure Human Being – The Business of Aesop™ No. 51 – A Fox Without a Tail
All Men Are Not Created Equal, or Why Thomas Jefferson Got it Wrong – Stand for America®
Einstein, Jesus, and the Shared Kiss – The Business of Aesop™ No. 97 – The Fox and the Cat.
Sorry, Socrates. Or, The “Apology” of Socrates
GRZ93.20250201